Skip to main content
4:30 pm
case. >> >> my name is glikshtern and i am not objecting to the work to the building, what i am objecting on is the trees and the work on the hill and i filed this appeal because so many people that are against this part of the project. was actually is doing is it is killing glen park and destroying while life habitat. the permit says that they have the exemption because the work will not be done in the areas but on the... and it is totally untrue. the removal of the trees which are under the construction must not be attached to the center project at all. this project will be wasting tax payer money on building a
4:31 pm
new entrance, and the hills and trees and planting native gardens instead of using this money to work on the recreation center filled with the play grounds and playing hills. it was a half a million, ad promotes. the process did not actually consume the neighbor's information was withheld from the community. in the information provided was... and will be doing the presentation. >> so, i am also a park user and i would like to say thank you for hearing the appeal and considering our concerns. it is absolutely not correct that spending a half million dollars for a repeated community workshops replaces the compliance with the
4:32 pm
environmental control regulations. the workshops are more about marketing a product, rather than the project so that they can make sound decisions. if you look at the certificate of determination, it is specifically says that there is no work in the natural areas, and that there is work on the hillside. there was a quick e-mail that was sent after we filed the appeal saying that well that was not going to change their determination from the department of planning but that is not a valid, evaluation that would go to the departments to come to that certificate of determination. so, regular citizens and others have to comply with the environmental control regulations and so too should the city. so i have to say, ask yourself, where is the proof that they have complied with the regulations. the hillside removal and the
4:33 pm
tree removals with all of the other projects will impact air quality and impact the carbon and wild life, and it will help to impact historic resources, property values, and deserves compliance with the state regulations. there is no question that the hillsides and what is on the hillside is scenic and that the removal will dramatically change the neighborhood of glen canyon. there is also no question that those eucalptisc on the hillside are healthy and mature and low removal is not see quental for determination. our own arborists evaluated those trees and they are in great condition and low-risk.
4:34 pm
>> it is absolutely not correct that the workshop demonstrated community consensus on removing the trees or even that the community supports the rec and park design. the fact is that the tree removals are an ongoing community concern with some people no and against the tree removals. when sfforest had a meeting about the tree removals in october of this year it was attended by about 100 people withstanding room only. few people had any idea of what is going on with the project. also, about 3,000 people signed a petition, asking to save glen canyon trees and to revise the plan. people even valleyed on the street corners in the rain asking rpd to revise the plan and rpd has yet to meet with the public to explain the poor suitbility criteria that is being used for removing the
4:35 pm
trees. so, it is absolutely correct what rpd is saying as far as the 44 trees, in the natural areas, but they are not related to the construction. rec and park tacked those trees on long after the last community meeting and the trees are going to be replaced with about 2,000 native plants. but at best is the appearance that they are influencing the controversial and unapproved natural areas program with using rec center funds. even if one agrees with removing these trees, the removal belong with the forestry project and not hijacking the funds for the recreation facility. none of these trees, except for emergency removals are exempt
4:36 pm
from the environmental review. trees are considered the lungs of the city and are being stripped bit by bit. as of october first, three currently funded projects will remove 150 trees, which is down from the original 280, but one would expect more coming later. poor suitbility is not hazardous. the rec and parks assessment for glen canyon only identified one, high risk tree for removal with the renovation project. it is the other assessment called for the suitbility that is removing the remainder of the trees. so, we respectfully request that the board of appeals revoke the building permit for any work on the hillside. there isn't conclusive proof of compliance with the state and environmental regulations for any such work in the hillside.
4:37 pm
once the 130--year-old trees are gone, they are gone forever, along with much of the loved character of glen canyon park. thank you. >> okay. we are hearing from the department, now. rec and parks? >> >> hello, i am karin mondiborda
4:38 pm
c, i am the deputy director and the project manager for the glen park project and i am pleased to be here to have the opportunity to respond to this appeal and provide information on this important project. >> glen canyon park is an extremely special and diverse environment with the mix of natural amendties and others. >> the challenge that the public has before them with any, capital project is to balance those. it is a very large park, 67 acres. the renovation is focused at the southern end of the park and i want to show you that the yellow zone that is indicated there and this permit is only addressing that area of the park. the renovation project is focused on the southern end, and closest to the center, the most active portion of the park, which is where the
4:39 pm
well-used and well-loved ball fields, rec center, including the gym, playground and two tennis courts and provide active opportunities for the public. the project which is funded for the 2008 clean and safe neighbor parks bond would provide a much-needed improvement to the park. here is some images of the different facilities all of which are very out of date and in poor condition. the project will provide much-needed improvement to the park including a larger children's play area, new tennis courts and improved paths and entrance, new landscaping and heating and the recreation center. rest room improvements and improvements to the rec center. most importantly it will finally improve the features in order to comply with the disability access laws including the requirements of american disability's act. as stated in the appeal, the
4:40 pm
appellant's main concerns are the advocacy of the act and the tree removal and replanting of the project and the adequatecy of the project. and i would like to talk about each of those. as we stated in our response, these items are not before the board which they are not germane to the business. all of these have been addressed adequately and serve in the public interests. so here i have provided for your reference, sort of the overview of the permits that were submitted to your department and i have a copy of that as well. that i can provide to the commission. the appellants have addressed concern that the exemption received on this project is not adequate. that is the california environmental requirement. as in 2013, a copy of the findings and an e-mail from the
4:41 pm
planning department staff. the analysis includes both analysis of the tree removele and replanting and the discussion of the significant natural areas management plan which is separate from this project and under going environmental review. this is a capital project funded by the 2008 bond. tree removal is a sensitive matter and also very important one, we take our responsibility very seriously. as provided in the brief, exhibit 7 and 8 and the recommendations of the arborist report, recommending them to removal and other measures, we have included a map of the locations where the trees will be removed and the new 163 trees to be planted. also included are a diagrams that were on the project website, commission meetings, identifying those trees to be impacted by the tennis court relocation that was something discussed in many of the meetings. exhibit 10 includes a letter
4:42 pm
from supervisor wiener and as you can see this letter was delivered to 1500 households and posted on-line. as noted on the post, included in your packet. two trees recently fell and fortunately no one was hurt. we have less fortunate incidents in other parts of the city. finally this project has undergone a long and extensive community process. starting in december of 2010 and continuing through this year. as further reinforced by letters from michael rice and the president of the glen park neighborhood association, and supervisor weiner and the trust for public land and other members. this is a long process with over 12 community meetings, website information, on-line surveys, e-mails displays at
4:43 pm
the local public library, articles in local newspapers and more and there are a lot of needs in this park, the out reach was essential to develop and identify the top priority and weigh the option and develop the best plan to move forward among the options. as you can see from the materials submitted in your brief we evaluated numerous locations for the tennis courts and the playground and all of those were discussed. does this plan meet each of the plans? no. is it the best plan to accomplish most of the goals? >> yes. this project delivers a larger playground and new tennis courts replacing those that are there now and a new ada rest room that will be open when the rec is closed. the improvement plan also identified high priority features, which were not enough to... not able to be afforded with the 2008 bond budget.
4:44 pm
such as the renovation of the rec center, it was included in the 2012 bond improved by an overwhelming vote of the people last week and in this district as well which voted a higher percentage than the rest of the city. showing support for the planned park renovations and the planned developed through the community process. delaying this project is not in the public interest. this addresses many needs, most important are the needs for ada access and tree health and playground. the community has waited for these improvements these questions are not germane to this permit and we ask that you deny the appeal. thank you. >> can you for the record indicate how many trees are being removed as part of this? >> yes, 58. >> two of the 58 recently fell of their own accord partially a couple of weeks ago, but we
4:45 pm
still need to remove the remaining stumps. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. actually before you sit down, could you address the location of projected proposed tree removal? s >> absolutely. so. let me go back. so here this diagram, the red dots are the tree removals and the green dots are the new tree plantings. i can also direct you to the exhibit. >> if you could address the concern that the removals are located in the area that are not part of the subject of the seqa? >> the tree removals are surrounding the project, and those were all considered within the environmental review.
4:46 pm
the e-mail submitted, which i provided, i think, it is... turnover here, to 13. within exhibit 12, the planning department reviewed the trees planned for removal. discussed the number of removals up to 61 and in the end we are removing 58. and then, they clarified in an e-mail which is exhibit 13, that their analysis still stands based on the fact that some of the work would be and a portion of the natural areas, but the analysis still was complete and still stands. >> so some of the trees that are, you know, proposed to be removed under the permit are in the natural areas? >> yes. the edge of the hillside here
4:47 pm
is in the natural areas. >> could you put the illustration back up? >> sorry. >> could you point to the exhibits? >> i don't know if you can see. >> you can point to it with your hand >> and you can see it here? >> she actually has a powerpoint. >> i am sorry. >> i could try to... >> point it at the screen. >> so i will just mention that the department does implement capital projects in natural areas. as we do capital improvements to projects city-wide. the natural areas, program is a management program, a 20-year management program for how we manage certain land scapes and so some of this work is in the edge of the natural areas, but it is separate as discussed in the environmental evaluation
4:48 pm
provided. >> i think something was put on the overhead for you. >> it does fall within the natural areas program. >> how many of the proposed tree removals are in that area of the 58? >> i could... i would have to make a quick count. but... that is where two of them fell recently, this is an image of that area. i could try to do that and then come back up. >> so all of the green dots in that natural sort of area just directly it looks like the vast majority are coming out of that area? >> no. >> because they are new. >> the green ones are new, the red ones are removed. i would have to do a count. i would say, no just roughly
4:49 pm
looking at it, approximately, 15 or 20. >> okay. i would have to do a count. >> okay, thank you. >> >> thank you, scott sanchez the planning department. i will be brief, it deals with the accessible path and rest room and drinking fountain just the work that was revised to the planning department that was subject to a exemption that was reviewed this year and there was an subsequent e-mail that clarified that the portion of it was within the ramp area but that did not change the department's evaluation. as the appellant has stated their concerns are not so much related to the rest rooms but the trees and the removal of
4:50 pm
the trees and have concerns related to the project on the california environmental quality act. the planning department determination is to the board of supervisors not this board. that is something that needs to be appealed to the board of supervisors. i think that the ramp is something that is a plan that is in development now, it is not a planning department plan, it is not something that we developed and implement and enforce. so when reviewing the applications we would not be reviewing it. it is something that the rec park is enforcing and we are doing the review for that because we are the lead agency for the city and doing environmental review. but in terms of the ramp that is something that is a policy development that guides the management for rec park and i am available to answer any more questions that the board may have. >> what involvement does the planning department have with
4:51 pm
parks and rec in looking at their long range plans and master plans for various natural areas? >> it depends, there is a lot of overlap. so for the green connections is one program that the department is working close with rec park on and that is developing the actual paths. so making sure that there is, you know, various levels of you know either walking paths or bicycle paths. that is something that the department does work closely with rec park on. we will do the environmental review for the ramp and for other projects. >> he indicated that he does not have any comment at this time. so we can move into public comment. could i see a show of hands on how many people plan to speak on this item? >> we ask that people fill out a speaker card. if you are willing to, we could include your name your
4:52 pm
accurately in the minutes, you can hand that in when you come up to speak. if you have not filled one out when you come up to speak you can fill one out afterwards and pass it up. we are going to give each person two minutes and i ask that you line up on the far side of the room to make the process move more quickly and you can do that now. the first person who wants to speak with come up to the microphone. >> just starting right, you don't need to go too far from the podium. just so we can form a line. and someone needs to start. who would like to go first? >> please step forward. >> would you want them to hand them to you or just leave them? >> everyone can leave their cards and i will pick them up. perfect and i will pick them up as we go along. >> let me know what it is time to speak. >> my name is mike walcul and i
4:53 pm
leave on par dies avenue right across from glen canyon park where i have been living all of my life born and raised across from the park and about the subject of the trees, i have seen with some of those trees have come down and it was an act of god and no one has been hurt or killed. especially in these times when years when you have an el nino year where you can have the storms and the trees come down before anybody realizes what is going on, the next thing you are dead and something should be done. some of those trees are dangerous, it doesn't matter what anybody says, some of those trees are dangerous and just a matter of time before somebody gets hurt or worse or yet killed. >> i just wanted to say, allow this work to be done over here in glen canyon park. a lot of that should have been done years ago and everything. that is why the place is in bad
4:54 pm
shape from years of neglect. because nobody at rec and park or city hall really cared about showing an interest in glen park when things are like deteriorating with the rec center building. and the thing about the rest rooms and anybody that? a wheelchair, or has any other type of disability can't use the rest rooms in the men's rest room over at glen park, and then the woman's room too you have to go down stairs and in the men's room they are in violation of a safety code because there is no railing where the stairs are going down in the men's room, if anybody slips and gets hurt they get to sue the rec department for quite a bit of money and everything. and nobody seems to address those serious issues. it is just like it is a joke with the people here at city hall and rec and park department and the city and
4:55 pm
nobody really seems to care. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is dolan urgal i am a forester. and i have planted hundreds and hundreds of trees in sonoma county north and a few in san francisco itself. i am looking at this plan that we had here of the rec center. and some months ago, we were presented with a plan that would be the rec center needed attention. we had a nice idea. somebody had a nice idea and took it up. but, somehow conflicted with this was the ideal of the removal of a whole bunch of trees and moving other parts of tennis courts and this sort of thing. this brings up the subject of trees. now, as my friend over here
4:56 pm
mentioned, trees have fallen. but the trees that have fallen should have been removed a long time ago, they were old pines that are come up with their end of their life. the trees if they want to take down are giant things, about this big around. big ucaliptis trees that are historic and to get rid of his trees is just absolutely insane. we have, we need these trees. but, the other thing that i would like to bring up is that somebody has not got the right idea that a tree is a tree. somebody says, if one kind of tree is another kind of tree, not so. but, what happens was this conflation of the trees as opposed to the rec center, i am in favor of the center.
4:57 pm
leave the trees alone. except for the ones that need to come out. need to come out. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. thank you, very much for your attention. i attended most of the community meetings and i am here to say once again, because i have stood up at many public meetings and spoke to the rec and park commission meeting in 2011 in no*f. i have a series of my letters here. the options that we had ko compare all included the
4:58 pm
deleting of the entire row of trees. the pictures that she showed of the red dots and the great big green. i don't know if you want to show this again and i would like to point something out on this. this item here the parks and rec. actually, i brought what they handed out and if we could get this clear on here, shall i do that? >> okay. so this is the kind of this was one of the plans that was presented, the one that had been voted on. and what i want to say here, i like those words that the previous appeal had which were manifest and justice and grossly misled. an untrained eye this is the way that they are sitting here,
4:59 pm
actually the city's green circles all of the people thought that this was exactly that the way that it was. it was never discussed. you can see on this, that actually these tennis courts are being moved and these giant trees are being pulled out. now what is this green? >> it is very misleading. you can see this in picture after picture here that they are still showing green presence and this entire row here they are all in the after plans. and it was extremely deceptive. the public has not showed support for the plants. sorry am i over? >> your time is up. but i actually so what is currently in that space then if it is not trees? >> the trees are actually currently down a little ways and they want to knock them down and bring them up the hill an

November 23, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY California 2, Weiner 1, Michael Rice 1, Dolan Urgal 1, Powerpoint 1, Valleyed 1, Suitbility 1, Ada 1, Karin Mondiborda C 1, Wiener 1, San Francisco 1, Glen Park 1, Sonoma 1, City 1, Mike Walcul 1, Nino 1, Scott Sanchez 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color